Would You?

Mr H · Aug 8, 2019

Give them an inch, and they'll take the whole thing.

The trick is managing our leverage and, if anything is given up, it is only in a way that can be reclaimed 'plus'

SigZag · Aug 8, 2019

Art3 said:
They will take all three. Don't give the first for free.

Forget about this, and create a proper introduction in the introduction section. Tell us about who you are, where and what you shoot so we are less likely to suspect that you are on Bloomberg's payroll.

Will do, didn't mean to be controversial outta the gate just something I thought about today at work.

Hansum · Aug 8, 2019

I think we've already compromised enough. I mean damn, I have to give my first born just to get a handgun in MD. The US needs to get off this culture we have of trying to "protect everyone" by banning firearms and related accessories. Why can't we just accept that there are crazy ass people out here who are going to find a way to hurt people no matter what object is banned? The correct answer following these tragic events is to urge vigilance and to promote responsible gun ownership. Last I checked, the overwhelming majority of us gun owners are law abiding citizens.

Sent from my LM-G710VM using Tapatalk

MikeSP · Aug 8, 2019

I thought this was going to be a “Hot or Not?” Type thread...

danb · Aug 8, 2019

What the heck is the point of a carry permit if I've given up my guns???

Rifles get lot of media attention. The quintisessial self defense weapon (pistol) is used to kill a lot more people. 100x more. So once you give up your rifles they will be coming for pistols.

Anyway, I belive in equal or superior firepower. When white supremacists give their rifles up I will too. Of course if you think white supremacists will self disarm and obey laws... hahahaha your pretty dumb.

MDFF2008 · Aug 8, 2019

I've had this debate with one of my friends.

The issue for me always comes down to intent.

The anti-gun movement has displayed an incredible amount of dishonestly over the years. They often hide their true intent with semantics and word games.

So for me, even if I was offered a deal of guaranteed shall issue for everyone who was eligible in exchange for a ban on modern sporting rifles, I'm not sure I could take that deal because I don't trust the people offering it. I don't trust them not to reneg on passing the shall issue part. I don't trust them to not change the deal at the last minute, I don't trust them to pass the bill and then in a year, come back and say we need to ban CCW, and I don't trust them not to say "Well yes, we guarenteed shall issue, but in order to be eligable you have to take a class that is only offered once a month in Oakland MD and only has 5 seats per session, and we require an instructor who is a lawyer and certified as a Master Maryland State Concealed Firearms Educator, oh and there's no way to get that certification."

There's plenty of examples of this kind of dishonesty. When people ask me what I think is wrong with the 2A in America, one of my first responses is that there is a real issue with shadiness and dishonestly from the gun control movement, and that it's unfair to expect gun rights advocates to always be compromising and honest when gun control advocates are not held to the same standards.

danb · Aug 8, 2019

Btw, in 2013 the MD assembly DID ban some evil rifles, and gave us nothing in return. Not even a back rub or reach around.

FVCK EM.

Nobody · Aug 8, 2019

Where's the cake compromise meme?

Nobody

danb · Aug 8, 2019

Here is what I would trade for national shall issue concealed carry: I will generously allow the ATF to stop wasting manpower and resources on hearing protection devices and rifles that are short.

SigZag · Aug 8, 2019

gprimr1 said:
I've had this debate with one of my friends.

The issue for me always comes down to intent.

The anti-gun movement has displayed an incredible amount of dishonestly over the years. They often hide their true intent with semantics and word games.

So for me, even if I was offered a deal of guaranteed shall issue for everyone who was eligible in exchange for a ban on modern sporting rifles, I'm not sure I could take that deal because I don't trust the people offering it. I don't trust them not to reneg on passing the shall issue part. I don't trust them to not change the deal at the last minute, I don't trust them to pass the bill and then in a year, come back and say we need to ban CCW, and I don't trust them not to say "Well yes, we guarenteed shall issue, but in order to be eligable you have to take a class that is only offered once a month in Oakland MD and only has 5 seats per session, and we require an instructor who is a lawyer and certified as a Master Maryland State Concealed Firearms Educator, oh and there's no way to get that certification."

There's plenty of examples of this kind of dishonesty. When people ask me what I think is wrong with the 2A in America, one of my first responses is that there is a real issue with shadiness and dishonestly from the gun control movement, and that it's unfair to expect gun rights advocates to always be compromising and honest when gun control advocates are not held to the same standards.

hey thanks gprimr1 that's exactly why I was surprised that I actually had started questioning my thoughts on it. I guess desperation leads to subjugation. Glad it was just a mental exercise.

SigZag · Aug 8, 2019

Name Taken said:
Interesting first post.

You won't find a lot of "open thoughts" on this forum.

I'd suspect a lock soon.

Yeah feeling like I got off on the wrong foot here. I've been a lurker hear for many years, not much of a "JOINER" if you know what I mean. But a lock would probably put me back in my comfort zone. Probably 10yrs ago I met someone at Cresap handing out Md shooters patches and looked y'all up when I got home, kinda been lurking around since.

SigZag · Aug 8, 2019

Inigoes said:
They have already taken from you, and you haven't noticed. You want to give them more of your freedom?

well not yet but everytime sessions in I expect it.

Huckleberry · Aug 8, 2019

I think Ben summed it up best.

quote-those-who-would-give-up-essential-liberty-to-purchase-a-little-temporary-safety-deserve-be.jpg

Boats · Aug 9, 2019

Nope.

If I really want to carry, I would just move out of state.

And also: keep and bear shall not be infringed.

Boats · Aug 9, 2019

SigZag said:
well not yet but everytime sessions in I expect it.

Oh but they have. HBARs? 10-rd mags? HQL? Mandatory registration? "Evil" features? Banned weapons? Handgun rosters?

And that's just Maryland. Nevermind the GCA, Assault weapon ban, and the NFA federally.

And each one takes a little more freedom in exchange for the illusion of safety, or something like that.

ComeGet · Aug 9, 2019

No. For all the reasons already mentioned.

K31 · Aug 9, 2019

SigZag said:
Now THATS an analogy! thanks for that K31

What analogy?

Inigoes · Aug 9, 2019

SigZag said:
well not yet but everytime sessions in I expect it.

Yes they have

NFA'38
GCA'69
FOPA'86 - no new machine guns
AWB'94
4-102 MD Carry law '02
AWB expired '04
FSA'13 MD
BSB'18

RepublicOfFranklin · Aug 9, 2019

Rights are non negotiable. They are yours by virtue of your birth as an American. They can’t be bargained away, or sold, or infringed upon. Inalienable means they are still your natural rights regardless of whether the gov (any level of it) decides to put their boot heel on it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doctor_M · Aug 9, 2019

We have had too much taken already... not another inch.

Would You?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Banana'd

Member

Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Member

Member

Member

No One of Consequence

Broken Member

Broken Member

Ultimate Member

"Part of that Ultra MAGA Crowd"

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Certified Mad Scientist

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics